USPTO Panel Says Amazon's One-Click Patent Isn't Obvious

from the two-clicks-away-from-sanity dept

Due to the diligent work of a few determined individuals, the US Patent Office (once again) began to look into Amazon's infamous "one-click" patent. New prior art was demonstrated, and in an initial re-examination, the examiner rejected some of the claims in the patents, noting that they appeared to be obvious. Of course, patent appeals processes are long and involved, and after Amazon presented their side to a 3-judge panel, that panel has now ruled that the examiner did not do enough to show why the patent claims were obvious, suggesting that what many of us (including those who are skilled practitioners in the space) think of as obvious, won't be considered obvious. It sort of makes you wonder what it takes for the Patent Office to consider something obvious. Obviously, "obvious" has a different meaning to the US Patent Office than to most of us.

Obvious isn't obvious

well, it really isn't obvious...

i've been working with the web for over 10 years, and until amazon came along the thought never occured to me to save users the time of re-filling out information i already store in my database keyed to their usernames... DAMN, yet another opportunity wasted...

that may be so but..

I'm sure a bunch of major retailers were already doing it in meatspace (Store customer details using just a store-card, charge it all to their credit card which you have on file) and probably a few online as well..

Just because nobody else applied for a patent at the same time doesn't make it non-obvious. Most other stores probably assumed it was so fucking obvious it would be a waste of time applying for a patent!

im on the hunt..

this being just another reason im trying to decide which country to move to when my beloved USA falls upon itself... theres the UAE with no taxes, but no guanteed freedoms... theres china, with booming economy but a freaky form of communism. etc...

its a choice of the US which constituionally guarantees freedoms but then ignores them frequently, or some other place that gives greater freedoms but with no guarantee they will continue (ie, dont piss them off). bleh.

Just how many here have actually read 35 USC 103 (Obviousness) and know the test for applying it? (Actually, is there still a test?) From the looks of it, I'd guess one at best.

There's a fine line between obviousness and hindsight.

I'm definitely no expert in patent law but I know that knowing the codes and the tests that are to be applied definitely make a difference in how you view these things. I'd be interested in seeing the art and rationale originally applied but I'm too lazy to look it up. If anyone has, it might be worth sharing your 2 cents here.

Re: There is a test ya know...

Just how many here have actually read 35 USC 103 (Obviousness) and know the test for applying it? (Actually, is there still a test?) From the looks of it, I'd guess one at best.

The statute says very little. The courts are the ones who have defined obviousness. For years, the CAFC used the TSM test for obviousness because it made the courts job simpler. Given the lack of a statutory definition of obviousness, it is perfectly legitimate for people to discuss what the test for obviousness should be and to base that discussion on examples. That after all is how the common law arose in the first place - by focusing on examples and discussing what the outcome should and only later going from the examples to the general principles.

Obvious and Obvious

It's obvious, TODAY, that the notion of 1-click is obvious. Was it so obvious and apparent to everyone before Amazon (a) did it and (b) filed a patent application? I'm not as sure.

That said, I think the notion of software patents is absurd and should be abolished. However, until they are, we all have to play the game with the cards we're dealt -- and that means patents according to the "rules" (such as they are) of the USPTO.